English 2773
The Journalism of John McPhee
Winter term 2010
Reflecting on the pieces of the puzzle
Below are the (clearly) marked passages from the inksheds in which people reflected on their experience of reading McPhee's final version of "Pieces of the Frame," as per Prompt #21. For the class of April 7, add at least one signed comment, as explained in Prompt #23. I've commented on the first one; do it in the same form (if you want to make your comment appear in colour, go for it).
The first thing that comes to mind when reading this article as it was originally published is why is it called "Pieces of the Frame"? Nowhere in the article does McPhee mention anything about putting pieces of a frame together, physically or metaphorically. -- Yes, I wondered this, too. I figured he wanted us to put the pieces together, but I didn't know about "frame." So I looked it up; it's an incredibly complicated word. Check out the definitions on Dictionary.com -- there are 21 of them. The one I think might be relevant is #4: "a structure for admitting or enclosing something: a window frame." Maybe McPhee wants us to think of this frame as enclosing an idea? -- Russ Hunt
When I tried assembling this piece myself, I thought of how McPhee seemingly goes off topic between paragraphs and almost tells two stories at once, sometimes not even coming to a general conclusion at the end. McPhee has done that in this piece, however, not to the extent in which I thought. I find that McPhee is kind of scattered when he writes, too. He will start talking about one thing and then all of a sudden start talking about something else. I thought that Pieces of the Frame seemed to flow and it wasn't as random as I thought it would be. Most of the pieces seemed to fit together and they seemed to make sense. I included some of the sections that weren't even part of the story just because I thought that they made sense with the other sections. He seemed to stay consistent about talking about the Loch ness monster for most of the piece.
-- Shannon Billings
I don't think it seemed so set in stone that there could only be one possible way to arrange its pieces. I think it could also flow together somewhat nicely in the order that some of us were putting it in while piecing it together ourselves. Some parts of it obviously come before or after others, but it seems to me that there are at least a few sections of this article that could be swapped or rearranged and it would still make sense and flow together quite nicely. I find this comment particularly important, and accurate. When I read the article, I put into the order I felt comfortable reading it, and still when I go over till this day, it makes sense in the order I put it in. Even though it is not in the correct order. I think this says a lot about McPhee as a writer, because he obviously goes against the readers expectations. I do agree there were some peices a reader just knew fit together, but others did not fit together at all. I am beginning to wonder whether McPhee does this purposely or if the reason because he takes a break between the paragraphs he writes, causing him to beginning with another subject?
--Brittany Douthwright
This statement I find is true because this is how I look at the article. After reading all of the separate sections first and trying to work out what went together and did not make sense I had a idea of the flow of the article. I knew that it had to be arranged as McPhee was telling the story of his trip from start to finish. So, I arranged mine version with McPhee describing what he saw on the way to Loch Ness and ended it with him at his arrival talking with Skelton. I found that the ending section all went together and you could tell the progression of the conversation, but I played with the other parts for hours trying to find the right spot. I changed it so many times that I just decided on one version at one point because their seemed to be more than one way you could say the same thing. -Andrew Bartlett
I agree with this comment even though I don't always agree with that witting style. Sometimes when you write you have a lot you want to tell people, so you might just jump topics because you're eager and excited about what you have to say. You want to squeeze every drop out of the tube. The problem with this is, it can get confusing and annoying to the reader. In many of McPhee's pieces I was turned off to reading a sizable amount because it seemed like they couldnt get to the point. When you write like that it may come across as a ramble with no real direction. - Acey Outerbridge
After I put the article together for the first time I was pleased with the way the sections flowed together. I agree with this comment because I think the article could be arranged in a few different ways then its orginal version. Due to the fact that McPhee can be so scattered with his writing I would not be surprised with this article being placed differently. It is true that some parts fit together more obviously but some of the more random sections did not necessarily have perminant positions - Jessica Bruce
-- I do agree that there were sections that went together without a doubt, and others that were questionable. However, I feel because of the great job that McPhee did telling the story, the order itself really did not seem to matter...everyone seem to grasp the same parts of the story. I agree with Acey when it seems that he goes too far off topic sometimes to the point where I do lose interest. -- Matt McGrath
--I agree completely with this comment, and it's one of the main things that going through the process of attempting to assemble "Pieces of the Frame" showed me. Not only is there not one set way that the pieces can be put together, but I think it's also possible to argue that there are other ways than the order McPhee actually chose that may make moresensefor a variety of reasons. I can't think of any other author who writes in such a way that you can switch all the pieces around and it still makes sense. I think it's definitely a testament to how unique McPhee's writing style is that this is even a possibility.-- Joline Gaudet
The way that McPhee writes this story is more developing a story than I thought when I initially read it. Piecing it together I was doing so more in a way of reporting a scene for what was happening. I was grouping similar paragraphs together which made I more choppy than the actual piece. The way McPhee has it, allows for a story to be told but with more flow. I really agree with this statement. While I was trying to put the pieces of The Frame together, I was simply trying to group like topics and similar paragraphs together. And in doing so, I really lost the meaning and fluidity of the story that McPhee was trying to get across. It was tough to really stay connected with piece while I was putting it together, and it wasn't until I was able to read the real version that I was able to appreciate and understand the flow and craftsmanship that McPhee put into this work. -Courtney Fox
The children are very interested by the dead snake. McPhee seems to be suggesting, by ending the piece in this way, that humans are fascinated by death, particularly in those creatures to which we feel no natural sympathy -- bears, reptile, etc. We are taught, or perhaps born with the impulse to kill those which seem to pose a threat to us. The snake, the bear, the missionary -- all these examples seem to illustrate a strange relationship wthat we have with the threatening, the unknown -- we want to destroy, to torture these creatures, but we also want to understand them, to put them on display. the creature of Loch seems vulnerable when sandwiched between tales of human cruelty towards animals (and each other) and descriptions of humans who want so desperately know it, to understand it. I do not think humans necessarily want to torture animals or what is unknown to them I believe that the torture comes out of fear if anything. I do agree that human beings, like you said, are afraid of things in life that are potential threats. I also found as I was reading the piece that the creature of Loch Ness seemed misunderstood and vulnerable as well. When the creature is eventually captured I feel that it will be killed out of panic. Human beings have this constant need to be in control of everything, they do not want to take the time to understand the ambiguous out of fear of losing that control for even a split second. It will be better off if the animal of the Loch is not found or is continued to be admired from afar.
-Mackenzie Heckbert
I agree with most of this article, except for the belief that McPhee ends this piece in the hopes to get this point across to his readers. I agree with what is being said that humanity will always be afraid of the unknown, however I don't believe that this was the main point of the article nor what McPhee was trying to point out. I think that McPhee, in including those certain passages about the snake and the bear and the Loch Ness Monster, was merely reminding us that this is how we have reacted in the past, and this behavior is characteristic of our race. This is relevant to the piece in the sense that if in our encounters with the unknown in the past have ended a certain way, we must assume that if we ever do capture the Loch Ness Monster we will only act accordingly. I believe someone in class used the reference of King Kong, which makes a lot of sense in comparison to this article, I think the same fate would be shared with the Loch Ness Monster...besides the escaping and attacking people part...hopefully.--Garrett Derrah
One element of the piece I found interesting was the way McPhee hinted at the direction he was heading with digressions through the language he uses in introducing it. Phrases like "powerful and savage," "I could again feel the skin rubbed off my hands," "long deep cleft," and "ax-cut." precede the story about the violent murder of the missionary. There is an obvious connection between the description and the vents discussed; the Priest hand was skinned, and later the top of his head was axes. Violent images resurface again and again in the piece: the Father at the birthday party "spattered" the cake against the tree, his wife yelled that he was "depraved and cruel," he shouted, "serious threats." the camp's trailers are arranged "like a circle of prairie schooners, formed for protection against savage attack."
- - I think this is a very important point, because when I read the article, I did not even notice these subtleties. A great writer makes you anticipate subconsciously what the story is about and also how the story will end. And by using these kinds of violent words, and also images, the tone and the feel of the article are no longer pleasant and romantic, like we usually associate Loch Ness to be. We know deep down that something terrible is going to happen, and at the very end, we know its not going to be toward us, but towards the so called monster. - - Alex Nowicki
-- This is great. Not only does McPhee show us the connections between these events in using similar language, but in describing them this way he shows that the similarities are inarguable. The words we use to describe something can go a long way to helping us understand how we percieve things, and the fact that we can use the same descriptors for a bloody murder and a picnic argument seems to suggest that we comprehend both events to be stemming from a similar source. The language used merely illuminates a harder to define notion we have of particular human traits, and using the connections in language helps McPhee demonstrate that this violent notion lingering under so much human behavior is an important one to keep in mind.-- Evan Bower
The one section that I found most interesting was the one about the old lady and caged bear. At first glance it seems not to fit in with the rest of the story, but I think that McPhee uses this life story to prove his point about how nature gets affected by human control.
-- I agree with this passage, and I too thought it was intriguing to try and figure out why those four kind of harsh parts were in the text; especially the bear one. However, I came to link the scene with the caged bear and the woman with Skelton, because he said that he has spent his whole life hunting the beast (the Loch Ness monster), and will not go in peace until he gets a close look at it. McPhee almost seems to be suggesting through the bear scene that Skeldon has become so obsessive with seeing the monster, that he has himself become that caged and possessed bear, stuck in an incessant back and forth of insanity. There’s an intricate irony linking the hunter and the hunted, it seems. In the end, Skeldon is to the Loch Ness monster what the cage is to the bear. Yet, he’s become so fixated with this monster, that he's basically going from one side of the cage to the other as well, but just from the outside of the cage rather than from the inside. A bit in the same way as a jailer is as much a prisoner as whoever is actually in the cell. --Andréa Peters
After reading the article in its entirety (and proper sequence), I immediately saw the connection - or at least how I interpreted it - that the caged bear had with the story. The Loch Ness is the caged bear. And the people paying their money to see the bear represent Skelton and the tourists who travel to try and catch a glimpse. The crazy old woman made the bear out to be a ferocious animal that was worth seeing, but all it was was a baby cub frantically trying to get out of its cage and away from luring eyes. The Loch Ness, too, seems to be an innocent creature who just wants to be left alone. -- Jody McIntyre
I liked the connection between the caged bear and the Loch Ness monster also, and how it is used to illustrate a broader point about how human beings always seem to interfere with nature. This is something that has come up in a few other environmental pieces I have read by McPhee - humans stepping in to interrupt or alter what would have otherwise happened naturally. I like that he seems to just show us these things and let us draw our own conclusions and form our own opinions about them rather than flat out telling us what he thinks or what he wants us to think. He has opinions, and his writing might at times be crafted to steer us toward those opinions, but we still feel like we're forming them for ourselves by having to actively think about what he is telling us and showing us. -- Darcy Cameron
After reading it all the way through, I felt McPhee was leading me towards thinking about the dichotomies of humanity and nature. He shows the human tendencies that we all have to be cruel and uncaring towards other living things. The truth is in his anecdotes. McPhee meanders away from the narrative he's set out in order to show snippets of humanity. His stories all seem to follow the idea that humans have the capacity to be cruel. I think endings are important to McPhee, and he chooses to end with the story of the snake. I thought a lot of how he ended the story, and I think he'd only put that tat the end if it was integral to his point. McPhee is kind of showing the strange curiosity in humans. Even as children we can't help but watch another life suffer. -- I agree with what is said in this passage. I find it a common theme for McPhee to depict just how cruel humans can be sometimes. I also think, however, that what McPhee is doing by adding the story of the snake at the end of "Pieces of the Frame" is comparing the snake to the monster in Loch Ness. The monster is still very mysterious, we don't think it's harmless but fear that it could be. I think McPhee added the snake because he believes this is what humans would do to the Loch Ness monster if it were ever caught. We would move in for a closer look and then kill it out of fear. I think Mcphee believes that if we do not kill the monster, it would suffer another sad fate like the bear he incorporated in the story. I believe McPhee thinks that, even if we don't kill the monster, we will lock it up just so we can stare at it all day and observe it. He puts these pieces in to show us just how capable we are of doing such cruel things without ever really putting much thought into it.
-- Katelyn Mokler
--I completely agree with this statement. After reading it I thought about it in a few different ways, attempting to decide if I thought this is what McPhee was hoping that we would get out of reading the piece. I have decided that yes, I think McPhee sneaks certain ideas in all of pieces with hopes that readers will take something from it. In this particular passage it is the fascination that human beings have with the ugly and the unknown. The curiosity of humans is key to this story I think. In my opinion McPhee loads the story down with all events and details that are surrounding the curiosity so that an intriguing storyline and dialect is created; thus making it more appealing. I would completely agree with "snippets of humanity" comment. I think this is exactly what McPhee does in a lot of his work, it is just simply up to the attentive reader to pick up on it.
--Deanna Gamble
So, let's say the locals caught and captured the Loch Ness and held it captive. There would be so much fuss and scurry, all kinds of testing would be done, there'd be more tourists than ever before, and because they are unfamiliar with what species it is, no one would know how to properly take care of it . . . which could possibly lead it to die. The same sort of death the snake experienced.
-I really thought this was a major point behind the whole article. Not only that we may accidentally kill it, but that we would actively mistreat it. Captivity is a strange idea. Our human fascination with the unknown and our self perceived dominance don't really mix well for anything else on this planet. The frantic bear story gets this across perfectly.
-Adam Hodnett-
I think that is what McPhee is attempting to hint at when he brings up his anecdote about the bear. It seems random to us, especially when we read it as a separate segment. But once I read the full story it kind of got me thinking about the point of including the bear. I didn't really come to a reason why until I read this comment. What McPhee is doing is not only connecting the captivity of the bear to the possible outcome for Loch Ness, as Adam pointed out, I think he is also slyly inserting his own bias into the story. As he was not willing to pay to see the bear it seems like McPhee is suggesting that capturing the would be monster would not be benificial. It goes back to what I said last class about McPhee freely inserting his bias into a story. I think he does it every time that he writes a piece.
- Ianic Roy Richard
The ending of the article states that the Loch Ness Monster is in fact a monster, and as such we will be fascinated by it. I think this is also why McPhee ends the story with the memory of his children and the snake. As the snake enters the scene it is an unknown and therefore is killed, which can readily be applied to the Loch Ness Monster. --Yes I agree with this as well. This is an interesting note as when I first read "Pieces of the Frame", I thought the snake was an interpretation of the loch ness monster to the children, (I thought this before having all the pieces in the correct order). And in fact yes children are fascinated with animals, (such as snakes) some may be scared and some children are adventerous and think they are cool. And therefore I feels as though McPhee ended this way also to display the relationship between the loch ness monster and the snake to the children. The snake is unknown to the children and the loch ness monster is also unknown to the children. The reality of it is they are both unknown to all of us as there are so many creature in the world, that we dont know about all of them. I think McPhee used his children in the piece to make a nice ending, children with something unknown exploring new things, cause thats what kids like to do, explore new things. He makes it seem more settling and the story related to him and his family rather than other unknown facts, resembling something else like he includes in his other articles.
Its interesting to know that everyone has different views on how it should end and which is good or not good, and what people thought of the ending. --Jessica Marr--
I think this response points out an important distinction. McPhee clearly states that the Loch Ness creature is called a monster by people. He uses the word monster, a word we all immediately respond to. As humans we have the need to categorize and name things, as an act of claiming them. By calling the creature in the lake a monster we are dictating how we interact and respond to it. We're able to place it at a safe distance as something odd and even grotesque. We can then justify treating it as something less than ourselves. Like the snake we can kill it willingly with no remorse, because of how we've labeled it. Language can be a dangerous thing.--- Emma Smith
I agree with Emma's comment that language can be a dangerous thing, particularly when it comes to labeling certain creatures as dangerous. After reading this piece I wondered, what is it about the Loch Ness "monster," or even snakes, that arouse so much fear in humans? Why do many of us have such an instinctive reaction after imagining a large, sinewy, amphibious creature to call it a monster? Is it because it seems inherently dangerous? Are we repulsed by ordinary snakes for the same reason? What really is a monster, anyway? Can anything large and threatening be labeled as such, or does there have to be some kind of mythical, mysterious element about the creature? Another thing I wondered about after reading this article was the motivation, and ultimately, the morality behind the Loch Ness researchers. Is it wrong of them to participate in activities that may lead to the creature being known, and, possibly, ultimately eliminated? What is behind their fascination with uncovering the mystery behind the creature? Is it due to a deep-seated fascination with the unknown? If they had a real appreciation for the creature, would they pack their bags, abandon the site, and allow the creature to continue its quiet existence away from prying human eyes? -Katrin MacPhee
Looking at it now, I can see how it might relate to the story of the Loch Ness monster -- a serpent that is harmless and just minding its own business, but for some reason people can't just leave it alone and are afraid of it to the point of actually killing it.
After reading the full article of John McPhee's, Pieces of the Frame, I realized why the section about the snake being killed does in fact "fit" with the rest of the story. When I initially did the puzzle, I did not include the section about the snake because it sounded to me like an anecdote from a different story about McPhee's travels, especially those that involve the Western and Southern states. I thought that this anecdote would work best in those stories because when I read "snake" I automatically assumed "rattlesnake" which are seen in some Western states and it reminded me of McPhee's "Travels to Georgia" and "Assembling California" pieces. However, after reading the article I now understand that McPhee is using this anecdote to explain how humans interact with animals we do not necessarily like or have need/want for- in this case a snake. Many people believe snakes are disgusting creatures and are quite afraid of them, so to stop themselves from feeling this way they kill them. The same could happen to the Loch Ness Monster if we come to realize that it is in fact a disgusting monster that we have no need/want for. What will happen to the beast if we actually do find one? I think McPhee should have asked someone this question and add the quote/story. -Joanne Goodall The passage where the priest is decapitated by the natives for blessing the lake seems to represent our deep and natural fear of strange and foreign things. The natives were ignorant to what the priest was doing and the priest was ignorant to the customs of the natives.
I've wondered for some time what the meaning of the scene with the sad birthday party was, but the only conclusion I have come to, is that McPhee used it to bring the readers back to reality to dissolve the fantastical mental image we have of Loch Ness, and show us that it's no different than anywhere else. McPhee really seem to want to shed the image that he is romanticising the monster and the loch. To him this is a serious piece of journalism.
The crazed bear in the cage would most likely be McPhee's opinion of what fate the monster would have if we were to find it. How we would cage it and put it on display, just like they did to King Kong in the movie (fictional event but still relevant).
-- I like how you bring up the point of the caged bear, the missionary and the monster. This was something that I kind of skimmed over when I was putting the piece together. I like how you make the association between the ignorance of the preist and the ignorance of the natives as well, it was a connection I hadn't really thought about before, both sides were equally to blame. I also agree with what you said about the fascination and exploitation of the monster and McPhee's attempt tp make it into a piece of solid journalism. All in all I really liked this comment, it got me thinking about sections I thought were useless and subsequently passed over. -- Allyson Gorham --
-- I like how this reflection interprets why the natives and the priest were included in Pieces of Frame. I didn't think of finding a meaning behind the birthday scene since I thought McPhee was, well, reporting the environment. But I definitely agree with the interpretation of the caged bear. The unknown fascinates and scares us so much, we do everything in our power to tame it or destroy it.
- Devika Dadhe
Throughout this section of the "Pieces of the Frame", I had a hard time fitting it into the puzzle of the article. I felt as though it might be random facts of history that John McPhee knew and decided to share with his readers. When finishing putting the article together, I left this page out. -- Kayla Lawrence
This is particularly interesting when considering the blame McPhee receives for going off topic, and his accusations of putting stories together randomly. Not only does the timing of what McPhee tells us dictate the meaning that each section provides, but he does so in such a way that it seems to difficult to emulate even when you know what his story is hinting at.
Katelyn Clews- I definatly find its kind of funny that McPhee gets critisized for being scattered, but i really believe he writes this way for a reason. As we all put together the pages of this article, it was aythinng but easy. I found it really hard to piece together what he was really saying. For Mcphee im sure this process wasnt easy either. He takes what he has got and puts the in an order thats locical to what he's tryig to say. And in some cases, yes they are scatter. He does this not to confuse us, but more so to get his point across in a not so obvious way. He wants to be able to tell us whats going on, but without coming right out and telling us, -this is what im writing, and this is why-. He wants us as readers to figure it out, and his "scatteredness" seems to be his way of doing that. --Katelyn Clews
I agree with this statement about McPhee's writing style. People often think he is throwing in random pieces of information that don't flow well with the story. I must admit that I have been one of these readers, but now when I think about this problem I feel like it is that of the reader not fully understanding the message he is trying to convey. Every aspect of the story has meaning and after attempting to put it together and then seeing the way he has put them together really shows the reader why certain pieces are added when they are. - Jessica Holt
I completely agree with this statement and personally I think the same thing. When I read an article by John McPhee, I sometimes get confused by the randomness of his subjects and stories. After reading "Pieces of the Frame" and analyzing the article like we did, it gave me a better understanding of McPhee when he is writing a piece.-- Kayla Lawrence
It makes sense that anything put together is random and when it comes to writing it seems very important to John Mcphee to direct the audience on a path of learning. Even if the path of learning is about fairness in the environment and the balance of nature by using captive bears, and dead snakes and then a birthday party. Scatter a few no hunting signs and give some people morals and then other will fall into the same category as the monster. Amy Lawson
The Journalism of John McPhee
Winter term 2010
Reflecting on the pieces of the puzzle
Below are the (clearly) marked passages from the inksheds in which people reflected on their experience of reading McPhee's final version of "Pieces of the Frame," as per Prompt #21. For the class of April 7, add at least one signed comment, as explained in Prompt #23. I've commented on the first one; do it in the same form (if you want to make your comment appear in colour, go for it).
The first thing that comes to mind when reading this article as it was originally published is why is it called "Pieces of the Frame"? Nowhere in the article does McPhee mention anything about putting pieces of a frame together, physically or metaphorically.
-- Yes, I wondered this, too. I figured he wanted us to put the pieces together, but I didn't know about "frame." So I looked it up; it's an incredibly complicated word. Check out the definitions on Dictionary.com -- there are 21 of them. The one I think might be relevant is #4: "a structure for admitting or enclosing something: a window frame." Maybe McPhee wants us to think of this frame as enclosing an idea? -- Russ Hunt
When I tried assembling this piece myself, I thought of how McPhee seemingly goes off topic between paragraphs and almost tells two stories at once, sometimes not even coming to a general conclusion at the end. McPhee has done that in this piece, however, not to the extent in which I thought.
I find that McPhee is kind of scattered when he writes, too. He will start talking about one thing and then all of a sudden start talking about something else. I thought that Pieces of the Frame seemed to flow and it wasn't as random as I thought it would be. Most of the pieces seemed to fit together and they seemed to make sense. I included some of the sections that weren't even part of the story just because I thought that they made sense with the other sections. He seemed to stay consistent about talking about the Loch ness monster for most of the piece.
-- Shannon Billings
I don't think it seemed so set in stone that there could only be one possible way to arrange its pieces. I think it could also flow together somewhat nicely in the order that some of us were putting it in while piecing it together ourselves. Some parts of it obviously come before or after others, but it seems to me that there are at least a few sections of this article that could be swapped or rearranged and it would still make sense and flow together quite nicely.
I find this comment particularly important, and accurate. When I read the article, I put into the order I felt comfortable reading it, and still when I go over till this day, it makes sense in the order I put it in. Even though it is not in the correct order. I think this says a lot about McPhee as a writer, because he obviously goes against the readers expectations. I do agree there were some peices a reader just knew fit together, but others did not fit together at all. I am beginning to wonder whether McPhee does this purposely or if the reason because he takes a break between the paragraphs he writes, causing him to beginning with another subject?
--Brittany Douthwright
This statement I find is true because this is how I look at the article. After reading all of the separate sections first and trying to work out what went together and did not make sense I had a idea of the flow of the article. I knew that it had to be arranged as McPhee was telling the story of his trip from start to finish. So, I arranged mine version with McPhee describing what he saw on the way to Loch Ness and ended it with him at his arrival talking with Skelton. I found that the ending section all went together and you could tell the progression of the conversation, but I played with the other parts for hours trying to find the right spot. I changed it so many times that I just decided on one version at one point because their seemed to be more than one way you could say the same thing. -Andrew Bartlett
I agree with this comment even though I don't always agree with that witting style. Sometimes when you write you have a lot you want to tell people, so you might just jump topics because you're eager and excited about what you have to say. You want to squeeze every drop out of the tube. The problem with this is, it can get confusing and annoying to the reader. In many of McPhee's pieces I was turned off to reading a sizable amount because it seemed like they couldnt get to the point. When you write like that it may come across as a ramble with no real direction. - Acey Outerbridge
After I put the article together for the first time I was pleased with the way the sections flowed together. I agree with this comment because I think the article could be arranged in a few different ways then its orginal version. Due to the fact that McPhee can be so scattered with his writing I would not be surprised with this article being placed differently. It is true that some parts fit together more obviously but some of the more random sections did not necessarily have perminant positions - Jessica Bruce
-- I do agree that there were sections that went together without a doubt, and others that were questionable. However, I feel because of the great job that McPhee did telling the story, the order itself really did not seem to matter...everyone seem to grasp the same parts of the story. I agree with Acey when it seems that he goes too far off topic sometimes to the point where I do lose interest. -- Matt McGrath
--I agree completely with this comment, and it's one of the main things that going through the process of attempting to assemble "Pieces of the Frame" showed me. Not only is there not one set way that the pieces can be put together, but I think it's also possible to argue that there are other ways than the order McPhee actually chose that may make more sense for a variety of reasons. I can't think of any other author who writes in such a way that you can switch all the pieces around and it still makes sense. I think it's definitely a testament to how unique McPhee's writing style is that this is even a possibility.-- Joline Gaudet
The way that McPhee writes this story is more developing a story than I thought when I initially read it. Piecing it together I was doing so more in a way of reporting a scene for what was happening. I was grouping similar paragraphs together which made I more choppy than the actual piece. The way McPhee has it, allows for a story to be told but with more flow.
I really agree with this statement. While I was trying to put the pieces of The Frame together, I was simply trying to group like topics and similar paragraphs together. And in doing so, I really lost the meaning and fluidity of the story that McPhee was trying to get across. It was tough to really stay connected with piece while I was putting it together, and it wasn't until I was able to read the real version that I was able to appreciate and understand the flow and craftsmanship that McPhee put into this work. -Courtney Fox
The children are very interested by the dead snake. McPhee seems to be suggesting, by ending the piece in this way, that humans are fascinated by death, particularly in those creatures to which we feel no natural sympathy -- bears, reptile, etc. We are taught, or perhaps born with the impulse to kill those which seem to pose a threat to us. The snake, the bear, the missionary -- all these examples seem to illustrate a strange relationship wthat we have with the threatening, the unknown -- we want to destroy, to torture these creatures, but we also want to understand them, to put them on display. the creature of Loch seems vulnerable when sandwiched between tales of human cruelty towards animals (and each other) and descriptions of humans who want so desperately know it, to understand it.
I do not think humans necessarily want to torture animals or what is unknown to them I believe that the torture comes out of fear if anything. I do agree that human beings, like you said, are afraid of things in life that are potential threats. I also found as I was reading the piece that the creature of Loch Ness seemed misunderstood and vulnerable as well. When the creature is eventually captured I feel that it will be killed out of panic. Human beings have this constant need to be in control of everything, they do not want to take the time to understand the ambiguous out of fear of losing that control for even a split second. It will be better off if the animal of the Loch is not found or is continued to be admired from afar.
-Mackenzie Heckbert
I agree with most of this article, except for the belief that McPhee ends this piece in the hopes to get this point across to his readers. I agree with what is being said that humanity will always be afraid of the unknown, however I don't believe that this was the main point of the article nor what McPhee was trying to point out. I think that McPhee, in including those certain passages about the snake and the bear and the Loch Ness Monster, was merely reminding us that this is how we have reacted in the past, and this behavior is characteristic of our race. This is relevant to the piece in the sense that if in our encounters with the unknown in the past have ended a certain way, we must assume that if we ever do capture the Loch Ness Monster we will only act accordingly. I believe someone in class used the reference of King Kong, which makes a lot of sense in comparison to this article, I think the same fate would be shared with the Loch Ness Monster...besides the escaping and attacking people part...hopefully.--Garrett Derrah
One element of the piece I found interesting was the way McPhee hinted at the direction he was heading with digressions through the language he uses in introducing it. Phrases like "powerful and savage," "I could again feel the skin rubbed off my hands," "long deep cleft," and "ax-cut." precede the story about the violent murder of the missionary. There is an obvious connection between the description and the vents discussed; the Priest hand was skinned, and later the top of his head was axes. Violent images resurface again and again in the piece: the Father at the birthday party "spattered" the cake against the tree, his wife yelled that he was "depraved and cruel," he shouted, "serious threats." the camp's trailers are arranged "like a circle of prairie schooners, formed for protection against savage attack."
- - I think this is a very important point, because when I read the article, I did not even notice these subtleties. A great writer makes you anticipate subconsciously what the story is about and also how the story will end. And by using these kinds of violent words, and also images, the tone and the feel of the article are no longer pleasant and romantic, like we usually associate Loch Ness to be. We know deep down that something terrible is going to happen, and at the very end, we know its not going to be toward us, but towards the so called monster. - - Alex Nowicki
-- This is great. Not only does McPhee show us the connections between these events in using similar language, but in describing them this way he shows that the similarities are inarguable. The words we use to describe something can go a long way to helping us understand how we percieve things, and the fact that we can use the same descriptors for a bloody murder and a picnic argument seems to suggest that we comprehend both events to be stemming from a similar source. The language used merely illuminates a harder to define notion we have of particular human traits, and using the connections in language helps McPhee demonstrate that this violent notion lingering under so much human behavior is an important one to keep in mind.-- Evan Bower
The one section that I found most interesting was the one about the old lady and caged bear. At first glance it seems not to fit in with the rest of the story, but I think that McPhee uses this life story to prove his point about how nature gets affected by human control.
-- I agree with this passage, and I too thought it was intriguing to try and figure out why those four kind of harsh parts were in the text; especially the bear one. However, I came to link the scene with the caged bear and the woman with Skelton, because he said that he has spent his whole life hunting the beast (the Loch Ness monster), and will not go in peace until he gets a close look at it. McPhee almost seems to be suggesting through the bear scene that Skeldon has become so obsessive with seeing the monster, that he has himself become that caged and possessed bear, stuck in an incessant back and forth of insanity. There’s an intricate irony linking the hunter and the hunted, it seems. In the end, Skeldon is to the Loch Ness monster what the cage is to the bear. Yet, he’s become so fixated with this monster, that he's basically going from one side of the cage to the other as well, but just from the outside of the cage rather than from the inside. A bit in the same way as a jailer is as much a prisoner as whoever is actually in the cell. --Andréa Peters
After reading the article in its entirety (and proper sequence), I immediately saw the connection - or at least how I interpreted it - that the caged bear had with the story. The Loch Ness is the caged bear. And the people paying their money to see the bear represent Skelton and the tourists who travel to try and catch a glimpse. The crazy old woman made the bear out to be a ferocious animal that was worth seeing, but all it was was a baby cub frantically trying to get out of its cage and away from luring eyes. The Loch Ness, too, seems to be an innocent creature who just wants to be left alone. -- Jody McIntyre
I liked the connection between the caged bear and the Loch Ness monster also, and how it is used to illustrate a broader point about how human beings always seem to interfere with nature. This is something that has come up in a few other environmental pieces I have read by McPhee - humans stepping in to interrupt or alter what would have otherwise happened naturally. I like that he seems to just show us these things and let us draw our own conclusions and form our own opinions about them rather than flat out telling us what he thinks or what he wants us to think. He has opinions, and his writing might at times be crafted to steer us toward those opinions, but we still feel like we're forming them for ourselves by having to actively think about what he is telling us and showing us. -- Darcy Cameron
After reading it all the way through, I felt McPhee was leading me towards thinking about the dichotomies of humanity and nature. He shows the human tendencies that we all have to be cruel and uncaring towards other living things. The truth is in his anecdotes. McPhee meanders away from the narrative he's set out in order to show snippets of humanity. His stories all seem to follow the idea that humans have the capacity to be cruel. I think endings are important to McPhee, and he chooses to end with the story of the snake. I thought a lot of how he ended the story, and I think he'd only put that tat the end if it was integral to his point. McPhee is kind of showing the strange curiosity in humans. Even as children we can't help but watch another life suffer.
-- I agree with what is said in this passage. I find it a common theme for McPhee to depict just how cruel humans can be sometimes. I also think, however, that what McPhee is doing by adding the story of the snake at the end of "Pieces of the Frame" is comparing the snake to the monster in Loch Ness. The monster is still very mysterious, we don't think it's harmless but fear that it could be. I think McPhee added the snake because he believes this is what humans would do to the Loch Ness monster if it were ever caught. We would move in for a closer look and then kill it out of fear. I think Mcphee believes that if we do not kill the monster, it would suffer another sad fate like the bear he incorporated in the story. I believe McPhee thinks that, even if we don't kill the monster, we will lock it up just so we can stare at it all day and observe it. He puts these pieces in to show us just how capable we are of doing such cruel things without ever really putting much thought into it.
-- Katelyn Mokler
--I completely agree with this statement. After reading it I thought about it in a few different ways, attempting to decide if I thought this is what McPhee was hoping that we would get out of reading the piece. I have decided that yes, I think McPhee sneaks certain ideas in all of pieces with hopes that readers will take something from it. In this particular passage it is the fascination that human beings have with the ugly and the unknown. The curiosity of humans is key to this story I think. In my opinion McPhee loads the story down with all events and details that are surrounding the curiosity so that an intriguing storyline and dialect is created; thus making it more appealing. I would completely agree with "snippets of humanity" comment. I think this is exactly what McPhee does in a lot of his work, it is just simply up to the attentive reader to pick up on it.
--Deanna Gamble
So, let's say the locals caught and captured the Loch Ness and held it captive. There would be so much fuss and scurry, all kinds of testing would be done, there'd be more tourists than ever before, and because they are unfamiliar with what species it is, no one would know how to properly take care of it . . . which could possibly lead it to die. The same sort of death the snake experienced.
-I really thought this was a major point behind the whole article. Not only that we may accidentally kill it, but that we would actively mistreat it. Captivity is a strange idea. Our human fascination with the unknown and our self perceived dominance don't really mix well for anything else on this planet. The frantic bear story gets this across perfectly.
-Adam Hodnett-
I think that is what McPhee is attempting to hint at when he brings up his anecdote about the bear. It seems random to us, especially when we read it as a separate segment. But once I read the full story it kind of got me thinking about the point of including the bear. I didn't really come to a reason why until I read this comment. What McPhee is doing is not only connecting the captivity of the bear to the possible outcome for Loch Ness, as Adam pointed out, I think he is also slyly inserting his own bias into the story. As he was not willing to pay to see the bear it seems like McPhee is suggesting that capturing the would be monster would not be benificial. It goes back to what I said last class about McPhee freely inserting his bias into a story. I think he does it every time that he writes a piece.
- Ianic Roy Richard
The ending of the article states that the Loch Ness Monster is in fact a monster, and as such we will be fascinated by it. I think this is also why McPhee ends the story with the memory of his children and the snake. As the snake enters the scene it is an unknown and therefore is killed, which can readily be applied to the Loch Ness Monster.
--Yes I agree with this as well. This is an interesting note as when I first read "Pieces of the Frame", I thought the snake was an interpretation of the loch ness monster to the children, (I thought this before having all the pieces in the correct order). And in fact yes children are fascinated with animals, (such as snakes) some may be scared and some children are adventerous and think they are cool. And therefore I feels as though McPhee ended this way also to display the relationship between the loch ness monster and the snake to the children. The snake is unknown to the children and the loch ness monster is also unknown to the children. The reality of it is they are both unknown to all of us as there are so many creature in the world, that we dont know about all of them. I think McPhee used his children in the piece to make a nice ending, children with something unknown exploring new things, cause thats what kids like to do, explore new things. He makes it seem more settling and the story related to him and his family rather than other unknown facts, resembling something else like he includes in his other articles.
Its interesting to know that everyone has different views on how it should end and which is good or not good, and what people thought of the ending. --Jessica Marr--
I think this response points out an important distinction. McPhee clearly states that the Loch Ness creature is called a monster by people. He uses the word monster, a word we all immediately respond to. As humans we have the need to categorize and name things, as an act of claiming them. By calling the creature in the lake a monster we are dictating how we interact and respond to it. We're able to place it at a safe distance as something odd and even grotesque. We can then justify treating it as something less than ourselves. Like the snake we can kill it willingly with no remorse, because of how we've labeled it. Language can be a dangerous thing.--- Emma Smith
I agree with Emma's comment that language can be a dangerous thing, particularly when it comes to labeling certain creatures as dangerous. After reading this piece I wondered, what is it about the Loch Ness "monster," or even snakes, that arouse so much fear in humans? Why do many of us have such an instinctive reaction after imagining a large, sinewy, amphibious creature to call it a monster? Is it because it seems inherently dangerous? Are we repulsed by ordinary snakes for the same reason? What really is a monster, anyway? Can anything large and threatening be labeled as such, or does there have to be some kind of mythical, mysterious element about the creature? Another thing I wondered about after reading this article was the motivation, and ultimately, the morality behind the Loch Ness researchers. Is it wrong of them to participate in activities that may lead to the creature being known, and, possibly, ultimately eliminated? What is behind their fascination with uncovering the mystery behind the creature? Is it due to a deep-seated fascination with the unknown? If they had a real appreciation for the creature, would they pack their bags, abandon the site, and allow the creature to continue its quiet existence away from prying human eyes? -Katrin MacPhee
Looking at it now, I can see how it might relate to the story of the Loch Ness monster -- a serpent that is harmless and just minding its own business, but for some reason people can't just leave it alone and are afraid of it to the point of actually killing it.
After reading the full article of John McPhee's, Pieces of the Frame, I realized why the section about the snake being killed does in fact "fit" with the rest of the story. When I initially did the puzzle, I did not include the section about the snake because it sounded to me like an anecdote from a different story about McPhee's travels, especially those that involve the Western and Southern states. I thought that this anecdote would work best in those stories because when I read "snake" I automatically assumed "rattlesnake" which are seen in some Western states and it reminded me of McPhee's "Travels to Georgia" and "Assembling California" pieces. However, after reading the article I now understand that McPhee is using this anecdote to explain how humans interact with animals we do not necessarily like or have need/want for- in this case a snake. Many people believe snakes are disgusting creatures and are quite afraid of them, so to stop themselves from feeling this way they kill them. The same could happen to the Loch Ness Monster if we come to realize that it is in fact a disgusting monster that we have no need/want for. What will happen to the beast if we actually do find one? I think McPhee should have asked someone this question and add the quote/story. -Joanne Goodall
The passage where the priest is decapitated by the natives for blessing the lake seems to represent our deep and natural fear of strange and foreign things. The natives were ignorant to what the priest was doing and the priest was ignorant to the customs of the natives.
I've wondered for some time what the meaning of the scene with the sad birthday party was, but the only conclusion I have come to, is that McPhee used it to bring the readers back to reality to dissolve the fantastical mental image we have of Loch Ness, and show us that it's no different than anywhere else. McPhee really seem to want to shed the image that he is romanticising the monster and the loch. To him this is a serious piece of journalism.
The crazed bear in the cage would most likely be McPhee's opinion of what fate the monster would have if we were to find it. How we would cage it and put it on display, just like they did to King Kong in the movie (fictional event but still relevant).
-- I like how you bring up the point of the caged bear, the missionary and the monster. This was something that I kind of skimmed over when I was putting the piece together. I like how you make the association between the ignorance of the preist and the ignorance of the natives as well, it was a connection I hadn't really thought about before, both sides were equally to blame. I also agree with what you said about the fascination and exploitation of the monster and McPhee's attempt tp make it into a piece of solid journalism. All in all I really liked this comment, it got me thinking about sections I thought were useless and subsequently passed over. -- Allyson Gorham --
-- I like how this reflection interprets why the natives and the priest were included in Pieces of Frame. I didn't think of finding a meaning behind the birthday scene since I thought McPhee was, well, reporting the environment. But I definitely agree with the interpretation of the caged bear. The unknown fascinates and scares us so much, we do everything in our power to tame it or destroy it.
- Devika Dadhe
Throughout this section of the "Pieces of the Frame", I had a hard time fitting it into the puzzle of the article. I felt as though it might be random facts of history that John McPhee knew and decided to share with his readers. When finishing putting the article together, I left this page out. -- Kayla Lawrence
This is particularly interesting when considering the blame McPhee receives for going off topic, and his accusations of putting stories together randomly. Not only does the timing of what McPhee tells us dictate the meaning that each section provides, but he does so in such a way that it seems to difficult to emulate even when you know what his story is hinting at.
Katelyn Clews- I definatly find its kind of funny that McPhee gets critisized for being scattered, but i really believe he writes this way for a reason. As we all put together the pages of this article, it was aythinng but easy. I found it really hard to piece together what he was really saying. For Mcphee im sure this process wasnt easy either. He takes what he has got and puts the in an order thats locical to what he's tryig to say. And in some cases, yes they are scatter. He does this not to confuse us, but more so to get his point across in a not so obvious way. He wants to be able to tell us whats going on, but without coming right out and telling us, -this is what im writing, and this is why-. He wants us as readers to figure it out, and his "scatteredness" seems to be his way of doing that. --Katelyn Clews
I agree with this statement about McPhee's writing style. People often think he is throwing in random pieces of information that don't flow well with the story. I must admit that I have been one of these readers, but now when I think about this problem I feel like it is that of the reader not fully understanding the message he is trying to convey. Every aspect of the story has meaning and after attempting to put it together and then seeing the way he has put them together really shows the reader why certain pieces are added when they are. - Jessica Holt
I completely agree with this statement and personally I think the same thing. When I read an article by John McPhee, I sometimes get confused by the randomness of his subjects and stories. After reading "Pieces of the Frame" and analyzing the article like we did, it gave me a better understanding of McPhee when he is writing a piece.-- Kayla Lawrence
It makes sense that anything put together is random and when it comes to writing it seems very important to John Mcphee to direct the audience on a path of learning. Even if the path of learning is about fairness in the environment and the balance of nature by using captive bears, and dead snakes and then a birthday party. Scatter a few no hunting signs and give some people morals and then other will fall into the same category as the monster. Amy Lawson